Degrowth: Is it time to live better with less? | CNBC Explains

The degrowth movement is seeking to directly challenge a central plank of global economic policy — that more is always better. Instead, to avoid future crises, advocates of degrowth say it is time to embrace a model that prioritizes social and ecological wellbeing. CNBC’s Sam Meredith explains.
-----

Like our Facebook page:

Follow us on Instagram:

Follow us on Twitter:

#CNBC #GDP #Degrowth

[longnewton]

Degrowth is, as the video suggest, hugely misrepresented and misunderstood because for decade we’ve been told the only solution is growth. Many comments here suggest degrowth is just another name for a recession or depression. These are things caused by too much growth causing bubbles that the economy has to correct through recessions. We get them regularly. Degrowth is different because it focuses on wellbeing and the planet and is managed. We need to change our mindsets and learn to live on enough rather than forever chasing ever increasing wealth. We are very capable of doing this, but it won’t be via capitalism.

[krishnarajpalghat]

I think if people change their way of consumption and stop unwanted consumption, companies will only produce what is needed

[nestrior]

A more honest video than I expected from CNBC. In contrast to some comments. Degrowth does not equal a recession. It might seem that way, but if we're being honest, we are consuming way more resources than we can afford. Let's take today as a snapshot. Growth in the so-called first world stops, but we still consume as always. And the rest of the world catches up to comparative consumption. In fact, May 10 2019 was marked as the day humanity would have exhausted the year's resources if everyone lived like the EU. That's 2.8 Earths. If we look at that alone, we have to face the reality that everyone consuming more and more is not only unsustainable, but also a sure way to drive humanity to the brink if not over.
Green growth will fall short in limiting this. Because it is still growth. More "sustainable" because it takes less resources to achieve the same figures of growth, but that is not enough on a finite Earth. The fact that we BURN fossil fuels already indicates that there is an end. Because we can't regrow them. Renewables are the way to go then, even if their production still takes a considerable amount of resources to reach a point where we can actually rely on them.
In short, Degrowth is not about giving up, but a mentality shift. We don't need new graphics cards and iPhones every year or two. We don't need five new outfits each year because last year's are "old." And we certainly don't need to fly across half of the world for 600 bucks for a vacation. I'm no saint ecologically, I know that. The hours I spend at a laptop each day ensure that. And I know that we will have to deal with the monopolies and oligarchies capitalism has bred before we can start this endeavor in earnest. But we have to start now. We are already 49 years late. Or 24, if we take the Kyoto Protocol.
If we have an endless growth in our bodies, we try to combat it by first decreasing the size before removing it. Why are some thinking that endless growth outside of it is good?

[___.]

All the silly (and terrible) things our business owners, lawmakers, and elites do for the sake of seeing numbers on a spreadsheet go up... Not only is it not "worth it, " continued growth is making our lives worse every day. Decoupling ourselves from GDP-driven policy is the best thing we could do and I'd happily accept 'degrowth' as outlined in this report.

[ariyantolim]

I wish this idea goes widespread. I believe many of us sick of living in an endless race. Living as mere workforce pushed by economic ambition while forgetting how to just live and be happy

[Someone-whhi]

To all the ones that laugh at this now. Don’t be surprised when you see degrowth being more successful. Especially in handling and preventing crises.

[jordanmumaw]

Yep, I agree. i read The Limits to Growth. And the proposal for degrowth of capital, pollution, etc. is well documented to be a sound pathway for genuinely sustainable human living on the planet.

[ryanleonard]

Sounds deflationary, and you'd have to abandon capitalism entirely. Which that may be what it takes, but calling it 'degrowth capitalism' is completely wrong, it'd be entirely different than capitalism.

[OutsideSometimes]

Simon Kuznets, one of the early progenitors of the ideas that lead to GDP warned directly against its use as a metric for any economy, and John Maynard Keynes, who formalized what we now know as GDP, did so for the purposes of fighting WW2, not for the purposes of providing for a human-focused economy in peacetime. He never intended it to be the baseline metric against which all progress is measured. The fact that GDP was ever adopted by the nations of the world is perhaps one of the greatest follies of the 20th century, and its continued use is perhaps one of the greatest follies of the 21st.

[XOPOIIIO]

You shouldn't be mistaken sustainable growth with lack of growth.

[jhonathanseagull]

Man, that was exactly my thought when I was mature enough to understand climate change and consumerism. We just keep leeching earth's resources for thing that we just don't need. In the presence of capitalism, which needs economies always growing, there is no way we can cut emissions by 2050.

I totally agree with degrowth.
I think we now no longer need to invest in military and weapons arms race.

[lamdao]

Bhutan Has used Gross National Happiness as a guide to grow their economy.

For the last 15-20 years, it has increased is income per capital from US$155 per annum to US$3000 per annum.

Yet despite being squeezed between 2 huge and aggressive neighbours- China and India, it is able to stay true to itself and keep its environment pristine.

Bhutan is not perfect. It is NOT the happiest country in the world. But by focusing on GNH, Bhutan’s society asks itself the right questions - what is the right balance for us as a people. What do we value? Are we truly better off?

[paulveg]

Bravo. Well-being is way more important than economic growth. Keir Starmer needs to embrace this concept.

[anurgaprasad]

Economic growth has made our lives better, we can have better health since there are more than enough vegetables being produced, best healthcare services in any time of human history, better education and the highest economic mobility.

Economy is NOT a zero-sum game! Someone's loss is not somebody else's gain in economics. China now has more Billionaires in any time of its history, that doesn't mean Chinese average citizen have become poorer, instead, 600+ million people in China have risen out of poverty.

Just like how degrowthers say 'oh we didn't take responsibility for suffering on hundreds of millions due to covid economic degrowth', they will not take responsibility when you and hundreds of millions will be starving near death...

[Maxyy]

Millenials and Gen Z are kind of already doing this. They appreciate experiences over consuming things. If we want to tackle climate change then well need to grow at least somewhat to find more sustainable products.

[ankur.mahajan]

If Developed countries are to scale back their consumption, then who will buy goods & services from developing countries ? Inherent conflict in the basic hypothesis.

[amanmalhothra]

Such a breath of fresh air! I hope this gets billions of views and spread awareness

[antongolovan]

As a first step, a 4 days working week could be introduced globally. It would not only slow down the economy, but would improve people's work-life balance just by granting one extra day to spend with a family.

[aneeshmohanty]

I think there was a great concept of a doughnut-shaped economic model where basically the outer edge was using too many resources that life is out and the inner edge was using too less where people will die from scarcity.. We basically have to maintain a balance in the middle. That along with an efficient market will stem out unnecessary industries in on itself(no intervention required)...Growth is important but we need a balanced approach in my pov

[vinicy]

True economic growth isn't making more of the same thing but rather creating more efficient and valuable services or goods.